And we still have the:
The People will not stand for this, and the streets will be filled with people up in arms.
Laws have been broken, political leaders will be held accountable for their actions (or lack thereof).
The hardware in place (data center(s) costing millions of tax dollars a year, for electricity alone) will be used for something else, for the people.
No one will go to work for the NSA, causing it to collaps
And yet, not. The only fight there is to be had for common folk, is to stop playing a part in this type of society. Start growing your own food, and/or speak with your neighbors about doing the same. Localize your needs. Stop depending on electronics to be your technology, Nature has so many things in place already that are so much more technically evolved than anything that man can make, and it's just matter of learning how to recognize and use them.
Check out the work being done by Simon G. Powell and Paul Stamets. Maybe there's more like them out there, but those are the ones that I relate to the most.
I wonder how they test this robot's ability to walk, considering that the moon's gravity is 16.6% of Earth's. Or are they taking that into consideration in the programing (and will simply adjust the code later, when on the moon)? Seems cool that gravity would be an item, coded into the robot's functions.
I think it's due to the nature of routers. Since they're a "doorway" they need a one-way lock, sometimes a 2-way lock. This mechanism also requires the IP address to be within the subnet of the PC. Sometimes this isn't easy to explain how to adjust. I'm not doubting that there is a fair amount of technical details. In fact I'm saying that since there is technical details as such, going around those very basic needs by default is inherently a bad idea.
1) Do not wirelessly transmit anything, not my mac address, nothing - by default.
2) The antenna, in packaging, should be separate.
3) There should be instructions included with how to set up the router, and they should include how to both find the IP address of the PC, and how to change the IP address on the PC. This can be done in DOS:
to change IP and default gateway:
netsh int ip set address "local area connection" static 192.168.0.101 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.254 1
to change DNS:
netsh int ip set dns "local area connection" static 192.168.0.254 primary
I know that there could be more to it, but generally not so, and in cases where it is, there is more than likely someone that made it that way, and that person can be contacted again.
Not sure if you're driving my point further or what. The problem with Google being able to sniff wireless, is due to the wireless being turned on, and no encryption being turned on. To me, this is a problem for common folks, because of the ability for large companies to drive around taking advantage of there being common folks. It's no different than bullying.
Take Aaron Swartz's case into mind, and compare that to what Google did. Not much difference to me, except for the fact that Aaron did something that's very common to do, just used 'wget' to do it, whereas Google had to drive around the world.
This bounces the blame off onto router manufacturers. Plug-and-play shouldn't be something that routers are capable of, but so many people don't want to understand every little thing about a router, they just want their internet, now. They're tired of having to call their nephew/grandson/son (or the female version of all said) to configure everything, so they try to do it themselves. The router manuals never discuss the implications of setting up the router in the default manner. Once granny is able to connect to the internet, she's so damn proud of herself (and worried about pressing a button to break it all again) that she never wants anyone to touch it again. Neither do her neighbors.
Routers should come with wireless off, and that's that.
...Or is anyone else fearful of America continuing on as it's been for the last 12 years? Hell man, bring on the change. it all comes down to local police enforcing the laws. In this way, it's clearly the blind people that aren't thinking, and enforcing ridiculousness that is creating what we are calling 'fear'.
The other day I pulled up to a line of cars that were all waiting behind this one asshole that was at the stop sign. It's a 4-way stop, and at a very relaxed intersection, so to have a line of cars indicated that they had already been there a long time. I was so far back that I couldn't see if the guy in the car was dead, or having car trouble, and all the other people were just waiting. I waited for a full minute, and the guy never moved, so I pulled around everyone. Well, there was a policeman right behind me. That mother fucker pulled me over for illegally passing over a double-yellow line. $180 ticket I have to pay now, and there was no alternative other than waiting indefinitely for the guy in the front to go (this was per the cop).
Honestly I can't care less about fear. It's stupidity that I'm concerned about. When all logic that has been generated by evolution seems to be disregarded, in the name of ideals local agendas, there's a need to get together and discuss/resolve, however Americans are so divided. And I think that is what everyone else is concerned about too, maybe I'm wrong.
Not sure what you mean, maybe I'm off beat here (out of scale?). But what I'm talking about is the liability involved with putting things into orbit, but not have a sure-fire way to determine where it's going to eventually end up, or not have some safety mechanism in place, like we do with everything else. Maybe it's a lot harder than I can imagine. But who pays the bill if shit goes tits-up, falls out of space, and hits a large airliner killing 250 people?
I didn't mean to offend anyone, much less a fat little monkey.
Wait now... what the fuck? How is this okay? They're saying that rocket scientists cannot plan such an event? Not even a tiny weency bit of fuel in reserve for re-entry? It's totally ok to allow something to fall onto the planet, possibly killing 1 or more? What if it hits an airline? The article isn't very informative, and leaves you with the assumption that if it hits you or any of your stuff (they specified a Honda?) it's covered by The U.N., and all you have to do is get with your local government. uhh...
I was really interested until I read "tape and/or glue". Hell, if I'm going to use those items, I can probably figure out a better hack, without using electronics at all.
I understand your point, if another way of saying it is like this:
No one wants their porn-video store membership linked in any way to their catholic church membership. Nor would anyone want their Sam's club membership linked to their gym membership.
Also you mentioned a healthy internet. Um, wtf is that? Is that the one where we can play mental dress-up or something? Why are so many people weary about their identity online, and at the same time, so many log into facebook as themselves, and log all of their personal lives' "data", daily. Such extremes.
Google bought YouTube, so the original design for YouTube is gone, dead, no more. Now Google is trying to link together all of it's possessions, and it only makes sense to utilize one authentication mechanism for all. It's silly that everyone wants things both ways, all the time, things just don't work like that. Just stop using YouTube if you don't like it. Currently, unless you want to comment, you can still watch all videos. Be thankful, because what if they drop YouTube access for anyone but members, as in, youtube.com just points you directly to the google sign in page. Just hope that Google never buys Facebook, or the other way around.
It's all I've ever used. It was version 10.5 when I first got heavy into it though. I use it as my only desktop now. I'm able to do anything that I need to do, it just takes me about 5 hours longer than it should.;)
They have come a long way as far as updates however (slackpkg). Rolling things from source is really cool and makes you look old-school, or so I'm told. I work for myself doing IT work locally, and even other "Linux guys" tell me that I'm hard-core, simply because I run slackware, do to it's very mechanical nature. I just go with it.
Protesting has nothing to do with making a point. It has to do with forcing change. The real issue here is that no one is really interested in being a part of the change, because if they sat down and thought things through, they'd figure out that all of the shitty things in their lives are there in order to support the things that they do like, but don't need.
If a law was passed that stated that any government official has the right to sexually engage any/all children that go to public schools that are 8 years old, or older, then you'd see wtf I'm talking about. People would be in the streets, in the jails, in the hospitals, in the morgue. And no one would give half of a shit about going to jail, or the hospital or the morgue, because they'd have a real reason to protest. Most protests today only have to do with people being angry, or simply upset, but they aren't willing to put shit on the line, and so there will be no change.
The governments of today understand the power of the people quite well, and so they make changes in small increments, and the people only get upset about the little changes. Next thing you know, there are nude body scanners in airports, and no one is anything but a little upset.
I read this short little article, it never justifies the statement. Just consider the idea that they're putting out, knowing that a certain percentage of people will just agree, and tack on one more thing in the back of their mind as to why they hate "hackers" and "computer nerds" and how things need to be more secretive and more government-regulated. Now imagine what that percentage might be. Where I am, it's quite high. So it doesn't matter if there's any logic in headlines, just the wording.
Paedophiles may escape detection because highly-classified material about Britain's surveillance capabilities have been published by the Guardian newspaper
As if another newspaper published it, it wouldn't have been a problem. This is what it looks like when old rich children throw temper tantrums.
"As the owner, you could be considered your autonomous vehicler's steward. You are accountable because you purchased the vehicle and choose to allow it to drive on public roadways. It's your property, so your responsibility."
That's a good point. But what I'm saying is that why would a human willingly pay to insure a car that they cannot feel responsible for? The first time you got into a fender-bender because of some glitch and have to come out of pocket the deductible... But then again, I'm no rich man.
"Because autonomous vehicles would reduce the number of variables associated with driving and probably reduce the number of accidents."
Unless the cars are on tracks, there is only a small amount of logic in what you said, and that's due to the fact that you said "probably". Now, if the cars are required to follow the speed limit, that's a whole other point.
"Even if the software is flawed, it's behavior will be consistent with all the other autonomous vehicles on the road, so the risks are much more quantifiable and predictable."
You're right. However "quantifiable and predictable" in no way mean "less" or "better".
"Having every vehicle owner pay a nominal amount to provide for the known flaws in the software that can result in accidents seems vastly superior to the massive crap shoot that is today's insurance landscape."
I couldn't agree more.
"You must not drive much, or follow the news."
I'm outside most of the time, and ride a bike frequently - mostly through the woods. The news is the worst show available, but that's ok because I don't have any sort of signal to my tv other than a ps3. Google news is pretty good about staying current with things that I'd care to hear about, although there are a few other news sites that provide good news only (things that don't make you want to leave the planet).
So you're right. cheers!
Why would a human pay to insure a car that they're not driving? Either I'm driving, and am accountable for my actions, or the computer is driving, and is accountable for it's actions.
I never have been able to get my mind around the need for autonomous vehicles anywhere, with the exception of Disney World. In 3rd world countries, they have gone to the end of this debate, and ended it with single-driver buses, or single-driver rail cars, or drive yourself.
What you said is correct. But maybe they're pushing these scientists off on the private sector for a (well planned) reason. Maybe one day Google or MS will be the ones handing out grants, based on their own priorities of course. I think both of those companies currently have more money than the US anyway, sitting in other countries (US tax free).
But of course this will send top scientists to other countries (or prevent them from coming to the US to begin with) in search of proper funding. I wonder if that would have any impact on the US...
Seriously, what do commercial planes have that stops certain swans that fly at 29,000 feet? Most migrating birds fly at altitudes between 10,000 and 20,000 feet. I know that commercial aircraft reach speeds of (an average of) 500 MPH, which would certainly cause the same crash that would kill a pilot that flew into a +4lbs bird.
I've never heard of a commercial aircraft having to deal with this.
Slashdot Mirror
And we still have the:
The People will not stand for this, and the streets will be filled with people up in arms.
Laws have been broken, political leaders will be held accountable for their actions (or lack thereof).
The hardware in place (data center(s) costing millions of tax dollars a year, for electricity alone) will be used for something else, for the people.
No one will go to work for the NSA, causing it to collaps
And yet, not. The only fight there is to be had for common folk, is to stop playing a part in this type of society. Start growing your own food, and/or speak with your neighbors about doing the same. Localize your needs. Stop depending on electronics to be your technology, Nature has so many things in place already that are so much more technically evolved than anything that man can make, and it's just matter of learning how to recognize and use them.
Check out the work being done by Simon G. Powell and Paul Stamets. Maybe there's more like them out there, but those are the ones that I relate to the most.
I wonder how they test this robot's ability to walk, considering that the moon's gravity is 16.6% of Earth's. Or are they taking that into consideration in the programing (and will simply adjust the code later, when on the moon)? Seems cool that gravity would be an item, coded into the robot's functions.
1) Do not wirelessly transmit anything, not my mac address, nothing - by default. 2) The antenna, in packaging, should be separate. 3) There should be instructions included with how to set up the router, and they should include how to both find the IP address of the PC, and how to change the IP address on the PC. This can be done in DOS:
to change IP and default gateway:
netsh int ip set address "local area connection" static 192.168.0.101 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.254 1
to change DNS: netsh int ip set dns "local area connection" static 192.168.0.254 primary
I know that there could be more to it, but generally not so, and in cases where it is, there is more than likely someone that made it that way, and that person can be contacted again.
Not sure if you're driving my point further or what. The problem with Google being able to sniff wireless, is due to the wireless being turned on, and no encryption being turned on. To me, this is a problem for common folks, because of the ability for large companies to drive around taking advantage of there being common folks. It's no different than bullying.
Take Aaron Swartz's case into mind, and compare that to what Google did. Not much difference to me, except for the fact that Aaron did something that's very common to do, just used 'wget' to do it, whereas Google had to drive around the world.
This bounces the blame off onto router manufacturers. Plug-and-play shouldn't be something that routers are capable of, but so many people don't want to understand every little thing about a router, they just want their internet, now. They're tired of having to call their nephew/grandson/son (or the female version of all said) to configure everything, so they try to do it themselves. The router manuals never discuss the implications of setting up the router in the default manner. Once granny is able to connect to the internet, she's so damn proud of herself (and worried about pressing a button to break it all again) that she never wants anyone to touch it again. Neither do her neighbors.
Routers should come with wireless off, and that's that.
...Or is anyone else fearful of America continuing on as it's been for the last 12 years? Hell man, bring on the change. it all comes down to local police enforcing the laws. In this way, it's clearly the blind people that aren't thinking, and enforcing ridiculousness that is creating what we are calling 'fear'.
The other day I pulled up to a line of cars that were all waiting behind this one asshole that was at the stop sign. It's a 4-way stop, and at a very relaxed intersection, so to have a line of cars indicated that they had already been there a long time. I was so far back that I couldn't see if the guy in the car was dead, or having car trouble, and all the other people were just waiting. I waited for a full minute, and the guy never moved, so I pulled around everyone. Well, there was a policeman right behind me. That mother fucker pulled me over for illegally passing over a double-yellow line. $180 ticket I have to pay now, and there was no alternative other than waiting indefinitely for the guy in the front to go (this was per the cop).
Honestly I can't care less about fear. It's stupidity that I'm concerned about. When all logic that has been generated by evolution seems to be disregarded, in the name of ideals local agendas, there's a need to get together and discuss/resolve, however Americans are so divided. And I think that is what everyone else is concerned about too, maybe I'm wrong.
Fireplaces?
Not sure what you mean, maybe I'm off beat here (out of scale?). But what I'm talking about is the liability involved with putting things into orbit, but not have a sure-fire way to determine where it's going to eventually end up, or not have some safety mechanism in place, like we do with everything else. Maybe it's a lot harder than I can imagine. But who pays the bill if shit goes tits-up, falls out of space, and hits a large airliner killing 250 people?
I didn't mean to offend anyone, much less a fat little monkey.
Reminds me of that skit that The Yes Men did. Check it out.
Wait now... what the fuck? How is this okay? They're saying that rocket scientists cannot plan such an event? Not even a tiny weency bit of fuel in reserve for re-entry? It's totally ok to allow something to fall onto the planet, possibly killing 1 or more? What if it hits an airline? The article isn't very informative, and leaves you with the assumption that if it hits you or any of your stuff (they specified a Honda?) it's covered by The U.N., and all you have to do is get with your local government. uhh...
Hell, what if it killed Obama?!
I was really interested until I read "tape and/or glue". Hell, if I'm going to use those items, I can probably figure out a better hack, without using electronics at all.
news flash dumbass... 100% of government is owned by the elite. The ones with the brownest noses win all of the time. Get the elite out of politics.
There, fixed that for ya.
Hell, yes I did mean that. Now that I think about it, I don't know if there's ever been a .5 of any release since I've been involved. Thanks!
I understand your point, if another way of saying it is like this:
No one wants their porn-video store membership linked in any way to their catholic church membership. Nor would anyone want their Sam's club membership linked to their gym membership.
Also you mentioned a healthy internet. Um, wtf is that? Is that the one where we can play mental dress-up or something? Why are so many people weary about their identity online, and at the same time, so many log into facebook as themselves, and log all of their personal lives' "data", daily. Such extremes.
Google bought YouTube, so the original design for YouTube is gone, dead, no more. Now Google is trying to link together all of it's possessions, and it only makes sense to utilize one authentication mechanism for all. It's silly that everyone wants things both ways, all the time, things just don't work like that. Just stop using YouTube if you don't like it. Currently, unless you want to comment, you can still watch all videos. Be thankful, because what if they drop YouTube access for anyone but members, as in, youtube.com just points you directly to the google sign in page. Just hope that Google never buys Facebook, or the other way around.
It's all I've ever used. It was version 10.5 when I first got heavy into it though. I use it as my only desktop now. I'm able to do anything that I need to do, it just takes me about 5 hours longer than it should. ;)
They have come a long way as far as updates however (slackpkg). Rolling things from source is really cool and makes you look old-school, or so I'm told. I work for myself doing IT work locally, and even other "Linux guys" tell me that I'm hard-core, simply because I run slackware, do to it's very mechanical nature. I just go with it.
Protesting has nothing to do with making a point. It has to do with forcing change. The real issue here is that no one is really interested in being a part of the change, because if they sat down and thought things through, they'd figure out that all of the shitty things in their lives are there in order to support the things that they do like, but don't need.
If a law was passed that stated that any government official has the right to sexually engage any/all children that go to public schools that are 8 years old, or older, then you'd see wtf I'm talking about. People would be in the streets, in the jails, in the hospitals, in the morgue. And no one would give half of a shit about going to jail, or the hospital or the morgue, because they'd have a real reason to protest. Most protests today only have to do with people being angry, or simply upset, but they aren't willing to put shit on the line, and so there will be no change.
The governments of today understand the power of the people quite well, and so they make changes in small increments, and the people only get upset about the little changes. Next thing you know, there are nude body scanners in airports, and no one is anything but a little upset.
Paedophiles may escape detection because highly-classified material about Britain's surveillance capabilities have been published by the Guardian newspaper
As if another newspaper published it, it wouldn't have been a problem. This is what it looks like when old rich children throw temper tantrums.
"As the owner, you could be considered your autonomous vehicler's steward. You are accountable because you purchased the vehicle and choose to allow it to drive on public roadways. It's your property, so your responsibility."
That's a good point. But what I'm saying is that why would a human willingly pay to insure a car that they cannot feel responsible for? The first time you got into a fender-bender because of some glitch and have to come out of pocket the deductible... But then again, I'm no rich man.
"Because autonomous vehicles would reduce the number of variables associated with driving and probably reduce the number of accidents."
Unless the cars are on tracks, there is only a small amount of logic in what you said, and that's due to the fact that you said "probably". Now, if the cars are required to follow the speed limit, that's a whole other point.
"Even if the software is flawed, it's behavior will be consistent with all the other autonomous vehicles on the road, so the risks are much more quantifiable and predictable."
You're right. However "quantifiable and predictable" in no way mean "less" or "better".
"Having every vehicle owner pay a nominal amount to provide for the known flaws in the software that can result in accidents seems vastly superior to the massive crap shoot that is today's insurance landscape."
I couldn't agree more.
"You must not drive much, or follow the news."
I'm outside most of the time, and ride a bike frequently - mostly through the woods. The news is the worst show available, but that's ok because I don't have any sort of signal to my tv other than a ps3. Google news is pretty good about staying current with things that I'd care to hear about, although there are a few other news sites that provide good news only (things that don't make you want to leave the planet).
So you're right. cheers!
Good point.
Why would a human pay to insure a car that they're not driving? Either I'm driving, and am accountable for my actions, or the computer is driving, and is accountable for it's actions.
I never have been able to get my mind around the need for autonomous vehicles anywhere, with the exception of Disney World. In 3rd world countries, they have gone to the end of this debate, and ended it with single-driver buses, or single-driver rail cars, or drive yourself.
Exactly what I was thinking. So many statistics these days are corrupt, all in the name of the investors.
And I have to ask, is your handle "Guy Smiley", the reporter from Sesame Street?
What you said is correct. But maybe they're pushing these scientists off on the private sector for a (well planned) reason. Maybe one day Google or MS will be the ones handing out grants, based on their own priorities of course. I think both of those companies currently have more money than the US anyway, sitting in other countries (US tax free).
But of course this will send top scientists to other countries (or prevent them from coming to the US to begin with) in search of proper funding. I wonder if that would have any impact on the US...
I don't trust wikipedia for stuff like this. I found info from Stanford.edu.
heh, I hear ya, but when it comes to freedom, or the lack thereof, any jail is just another place.
Seriously, what do commercial planes have that stops certain swans that fly at 29,000 feet? Most migrating birds fly at altitudes between 10,000 and 20,000 feet. I know that commercial aircraft reach speeds of (an average of) 500 MPH, which would certainly cause the same crash that would kill a pilot that flew into a +4lbs bird.
I've never heard of a commercial aircraft having to deal with this.